Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> > Moral complicity dissappears in the following >> > situation. The situation of no choice. >> >> 1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad" >> outcome doesn't change. > > Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity > as being way less morally wrong than willful > complicity. > >> 2. There IS a choice. > > The only other choice (assuming one > can't afford to homestead) is death > from starvation. That can't possibly > be seen as a viable choice! Surely > you must agree. What you have is a morality of convenience. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>> Then forced complicity >> >>There is no such thing. > > Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten > you and your family with death by starvation, you'd > be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. That's coercion, not complicity. Complicity implies willingness. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > The only other choice (assuming one
> > can't afford to homestead) is death > > from starvation. That can't possibly > > be seen as a viable choice! Surely > > you must agree. > > What you have is a morality of convenience. Do you feel life is a convenience? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > Moral complicity dissappears in the following
> > situation. The situation of no choice. The > > vegan must buy food and there is not enough > > veganic foods available to provide for a > > healthy life. That makes no choice buy to > > buy some commercial foods. It's literally > > a life or death choice. Responsibility fades > > away when there's no choice. > > You have choices, they're just too hard for you to face. What are these choices? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:36:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote > >> Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links >> vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop >> production, > >If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production, and I >agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in rice >production. No. It only links the consumer the death of his rice. Collateral deaths are contingent to the production of rice, not antecedent to it. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> > Moral complicity dissappears in the following >> > situation. The situation of no choice. The >> > vegan must buy food and there is not enough >> > veganic foods available to provide for a >> > healthy life. That makes no choice buy to >> > buy some commercial foods. It's literally >> > a life or death choice. Responsibility fades >> > away when there's no choice. >> >> You have choices, they're just too hard for you to face. > > What are these choices? =-==================== I see your supposed claims of extensive research have proven to be false again, killer. You've been given other choices here, you choose to ignore those that are too inconvenient or don't fit your selfish wants. In the end, it's kill the animals, I'll eat want I want, not just what I need. > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance run amok.... > > |
|
|||
|
|||
> >> You have choices, they're just too hard for you to face.
> > > > What are these choices? > =-==================== > I see your supposed claims of extensive research have proven to be false > again, killer. You've been given other choices here, you choose to ignore > those that are too inconvenient or don't fit your selfish wants. In the > end, it's kill the animals, I'll eat want I want, not just what I need. So what are my choices? And what are my selfish wants? What have I ignored for inconvenience? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> >> You have choices, they're just too hard for you to face. >> > >> > What are these choices? >> =-==================== >> I see your supposed claims of extensive research have proven to be > false >> again, killer. You've been given other choices here, you choose to > ignore >> those that are too inconvenient or don't fit your selfish wants. In > the >> end, it's kill the animals, I'll eat want I want, not just what I > need. > > > So what are my choices? ================== Again, where'd all that reseach you claimed to have done go to? Oh, yeah, it was yet another ly of yours, wasn't it killer? And what are my selfish > wants? What have I ignored for inconvenience? ======================== LOL You haven't ignored 'inconvenience' fool. You obsess about only those things that are convenient, and provide your selfish wants. You really are just too stupid... > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance run amok.... > |
|
|||
|
|||
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:55:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:40:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>> Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote: > >> > >>>>>No, I didn't. I wrote > >>>>> > >>>>> His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem > >>>>> with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however, > >>>>> is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral > >>>>> deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat. > >>>>> > >>>>>"It" in the second sentence refers to "his analysis". > >> > >> You cannot lie > > > >I didn't. > > As is usual with you, As usual with you, I don't tolerate your deliberate lying. **** off. |
|
|||
|
|||
> >> again, killer. You've been given other choices here, you choose
to > > ignore > >> those that are too inconvenient or don't fit your selfish wants. In The above is where you say I ignore those that are too inconvenient. > > So what are my choices? > ================== > Again, where'd all that reseach you claimed to have done go to? Oh, yeah, > it was yet another ly of yours, wasn't it killer? No answer I notice > And what are my selfish > > wants? What have I ignored for inconvenience? > ======================== > LOL You haven't ignored 'inconvenience' fool. You obsess about only those > things that are convenient, and provide your selfish wants. You really are > just too stupid... See the above re inconvenience. No answer, I notice. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote >> > The only other choice (assuming one >> > can't afford to homestead) is death >> > from starvation. That can't possibly >> > be seen as a viable choice! Surely >> > you must agree. >> >> What you have is a morality of convenience. > > Do you feel life is a convenience? Life in the city near a supermarket, in your comfy flat, near the job you know, with cable TV and internet, is a life based on convenience. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> > Moral complicity dissappears in the following >> > situation. The situation of no choice. The >> > vegan must buy food and there is not enough >> > veganic foods available to provide for a >> > healthy life. That makes no choice buy to >> > buy some commercial foods. It's literally >> > a life or death choice. Responsibility fades >> > away when there's no choice. >> >> You have choices, they're just too hard for you to face. > > What are these choices? Stop paying people to produce food for you in ways over which you have no knowledge or control. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:36:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >> >>> Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links >>> vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop >>> production, >> >>If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production, and >>I >>agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in >>rice >>production. > > No. It only links the consumer the death of his rice. > Collateral deaths are contingent to the production > of rice, not antecedent to it. There is no meaningful difference. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> >> again, killer. You've been given other choices here, you choose > to >> > ignore >> >> those that are too inconvenient or don't fit your selfish wants. > In > > The above is where you say I ignore those that > are too inconvenient. ================= Yes, too bad you can't read for comprehension... > >> > So what are my choices? >> ================== >> Again, where'd all that reseach you claimed to have done go to? Oh, > yeah, >> it was yet another ly of yours, wasn't it killer? > > No answer I notice ================== It's been discussed. You're too lazy, stupid or ignorant to care. > >> And what are my selfish >> > wants? What have I ignored for inconvenience? >> ======================== >> LOL You haven't ignored 'inconvenience' fool. You obsess about only > those >> things that are convenient, and provide your selfish wants. You > really are >> just too stupid... > > See the above re inconvenience. No answer, > I notice. ===================== You didn't ask anything that made sense, fool. Try reading for comprehension. To "ignore those that are too inconvenient" is not the same as ignoring the inconveninet fool. > > > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance run amok.... > |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > I presented 2, homesteading and death. > > > I forgot about getting a farmer to grow > > > veganic for one or more. Both homesteading > > > and hiring a farmer are not in most > > > people's budget, that leaves only death > > > or buying commercial. Have I left > > > anything out? (keep in mind that eating > > > meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death) > > > > Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two options > were > > eating meat and death? Just curious... > > I'd have to break down and eat the meat, > which I consider unhealthy but healthier > than starving. That's a last resort to me. > As long as veg food is available, that's > what I'll choose. Even when shown low > deaths meats, which are rare (no pun) > enough to NOT be able to supply all > meat eaters, I will still choose a veg > food. Some veg foods are 0 death, No vegetarian MEAL you've ever eaten was zero-death. > but meats always have at least 1. > Anyway, it's just healthier to not eat > meat. > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
> >> What you have is a morality of convenience.
> > > > Do you feel life is a convenience? > > Life in the city near a supermarket, in your comfy flat, near the job you > know, with cable TV and internet, is a life based on convenience. And that's a moral thing to you? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Derek" > wrote > > > Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links > > vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop > > production, > > If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production, and I > agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in rice > production. Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical fallacy of insignificant cause. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Derek > wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote: > > >In article >, > > Derek > wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> >Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > > >> >> Then forced complicity > >> > > >> >There is no such thing. > >> > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. > > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A > person can be forced to comply with brute force > and coercion if applied firmly enough. Logical fallacy of a false dilemma. I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the situation. I have choice of enduring your actions, risking a broken arm and seeing you prosecuted for assault. I have the option of matching your force to free myself. I have the option of escalating my forcing to counter act your force. I have the option of calling out for help. I also have legal options and illegal options to counter your act of aggression such carrying a knife, gun, pepper spray. I have the option of disabling you by attacking your kneecap, striking your nose with an upward thrust, gouging your eyes, or crushing your testicles. > It is choice > >that would certainly have a negative or unwanted consequence, but the > >choice still remains. Unfortunately, our culture allows the individual > >to get caught up in the "he made me do it" mentality. It is this > >mentality that allows people to be manipulated. it is a remnant from > >religion to inspire guilt and control. |
|
|||
|
|||
Ron wrote:
> In article >, > Derek > wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote: > > > > >In article >, > > > Derek > wrote: > > > > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Then forced complicity > > >> > > > >> >There is no such thing. > > >> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. > > > > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. > > > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A > > person can be forced to comply with brute force > > and coercion if applied firmly enough. > > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma. No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all. A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you feel is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is a choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of the truth. You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have not identified logical dilemmas at all. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > C. James Strutz wrote: > > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > > ... > > > > > >>I presented 2, homesteading and death. > >>I forgot about getting a farmer to grow > >>veganic for one or more. Both homesteading > >>and hiring a farmer are not in most > >>people's budget, that leaves only death > >>or buying commercial. Have I left > >>anything out? (keep in mind that eating > >>meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death) > > > > > > Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two options were > > eating meat and death? Just curious... > > She'd eat the meat. I think she's already said that. > > Homo felcher Ron would just shriek, "False dilemma! > False dilemma!" and flounce away. In the real world, such a dilemma does not exist. Therefore it is a false dilemma. That you continue to compound this with a logical fallacy of insignificant cause is noted. |
|
|||
|
|||
little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> In article >, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > C. James Strutz wrote: > > > > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > > > ... > > > > > > > > >>I presented 2, homesteading and death. > > >>I forgot about getting a farmer to grow > > >>veganic for one or more. Both homesteading > > >>and hiring a farmer are not in most > > >>people's budget, that leaves only death > > >>or buying commercial. Have I left > > >>anything out? (keep in mind that eating > > >>meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death) > > > > > > > > > Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two options were > > > eating meat and death? Just curious... > > > > She'd eat the meat. I think she's already said that. > > > > Homo felcher Ron would just shriek, "False dilemma! > > False dilemma!" and flounce away. > > In the real world, such a dilemma does not exist. Therefore it is a > false dilemma. "False dilemma" does not refer to the fact that the dilemma doesn't exist in the real world. You are again committing a defintional fallacy. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > In article >, > > Derek > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote: > > > > > > >In article >, > > > > Derek > wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > > wrote: > > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> Then forced complicity > > > >> > > > > >> >There is no such thing. > > > >> > > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten > > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd > > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. > > > > > > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. > > > > > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in > > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to > > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A > > > person can be forced to comply with brute force > > > and coercion if applied firmly enough. > > > > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma. > > No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all. > > A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you feel > is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is a > choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of > the truth. The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti -- skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and eating earlier. > You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false > dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have > not identified logical dilemmas at all. |
|
|||
|
|||
little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> In article .com>, > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > > little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote: > > > In article >, > > > Derek > wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote: > > > > > > > > >In article >, > > > > > Derek > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > > > wrote: > > > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Then forced complicity > > > > >> > > > > > >> >There is no such thing. > > > > >> > > > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten > > > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd > > > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. > > > > > > > > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. > > > > > > > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in > > > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to > > > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A > > > > person can be forced to comply with brute force > > > > and coercion if applied firmly enough. > > > > > > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma. > > > > No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all. > > > > A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you feel > > is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is a > > choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of > > the truth. > > The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti Irrelevant. This is not about what you might *do*. You STILL are misusing the word dilemma. The food choice isn't a dilemma at all, it's just a food choice. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote >> >> What you have is a morality of convenience. >> > >> > Do you feel life is a convenience? >> >> Life in the city near a supermarket, in your comfy flat, near the job > you >> know, with cable TV and internet, is a life based on convenience. > > And that's a moral thing to you? It's moral to me because I do not view killing of animals for my personal convenience as immoral. People who claim otherwise yet live a life of convenience anyway are hypocrites. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Derek" > wrote >> >> > Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links >> > vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop >> > production, >> >> If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production, >> and I >> agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in >> rice >> production. > > Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical > fallacy of insignificant cause. This is not an example of insignificant cause. The following example is quite parallel to the case of the rice consumer. "Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped defeat the Tory government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." See the following link.. http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php |
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, > Derek > wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote: >> >> >In article >, >> > Derek > wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> >Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Then forced complicity >> >> > >> >> >There is no such thing. >> >> >> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten >> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd >> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. >> > >> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. >> >> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in >> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to >> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A >> person can be forced to comply with brute force >> and coercion if applied firmly enough. > > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma. > > I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the > situation. You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating under extreme duress does not form complicity. [..] |
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article .com>, > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >> Ron wrote: >> > In article >, >> > Derek > wrote: >> > >> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote: >> > > >> > > >In article >, >> > > > Derek > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > >> wrote: >> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote: >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> Then forced complicity >> > > >> > >> > > >> >There is no such thing. >> > > >> >> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten >> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd >> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. >> > > > >> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. >> > > >> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in >> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to >> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A >> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force >> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough. >> > >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma. >> >> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all. >> >> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you feel >> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is a >> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of >> the truth. > > The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti -- > skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and eating > earlier. And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice. >> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false >> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have >> not identified logical dilemmas at all. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Derek" > wrote > >> > >> > Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links > >> > vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop > >> > production, > >> > >> If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production, > >> and I > >> agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in > >> rice > >> production. > > > > Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical > > fallacy of insignificant cause. > > This is not an example of insignificant cause. > > The following example is quite parallel to the case of the rice consumer. > > "Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped defeat the Tory government > because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any other > vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." > See the following link.. http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php What a powerful feeling that must be. An eating disordered person is likely to overestimate their impact in the world and to create situations where this would be viewed this way. The example is a case of insignificant cause. Is the cause of the defeat of the tory because the person voted reform, or because many voted reform, liberal and chose not to vote at all. Placing one's self at the centre of the universe is a frequent occurence for those who need to feel special, important, powerful, in control, etc. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, > > Derek > wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >> > >> >In article >, > >> > Derek > wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> >> >Scented Nectar wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Then forced complicity > >> >> > > >> >> >There is no such thing. > >> >> > >> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten > >> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd > >> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. > >> > > >> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. > >> > >> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in > >> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to > >> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A > >> person can be forced to comply with brute force > >> and coercion if applied firmly enough. > > > > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma. > > > > I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the > > situation. > > You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating > under extreme duress does not form complicity. Doing X because my arm may be broken is still complicity. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article .com>, > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > > >> Ron wrote: > >> > In article >, > >> > Derek > wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > >In article >, > >> > > > Derek > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> Then forced complicity > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >There is no such thing. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten > >> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd > >> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. > >> > > > > >> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. > >> > > > >> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in > >> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to > >> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A > >> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force > >> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough. > >> > > >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma. > >> > >> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all. > >> > >> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you feel > >> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is a > >> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of > >> the truth. > > > > The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti -- > > skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and eating > > earlier. > > And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice. > > >> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false > >> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have > >> not identified logical dilemmas at all. Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting. Please illustrate in any meaningful way how the three examples are different I can choose chocolate cake or rice pudding (You limit my choices) I can choose to be with you or against you (bush limits my choices) I can choose chili or spaghetti (rudy limits my choices) Contrary to the example of the chocolate cake where -- not choosing chocolate cake would make one an idiot, bush's comments don't presume anything other than what is stated. Bush didn't state if you don't choose against terrorism then you are.... |
|
|||
|
|||
Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > > > "Ron" > wrote in message > > ... > > > In article .com>, > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > > > > >> Ron wrote: > > >> > In article >, > > >> > Derek > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > >In article >, > > >> > > > Derek > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> Then forced complicity > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> >There is no such thing. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten > > >> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd > > >> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. > > >> > > > > >> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in > > >> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to > > >> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A > > >> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force > > >> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough. > > >> > > > >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma. > > >> > > >> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all. > > >> > > >> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you feel > > >> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is a > > >> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of > > >> the truth. > > > > > > The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti -- > > > skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and eating > > > earlier. > > > > And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice. > > > > >> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false > > >> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have > > >> not identified logical dilemmas at all. > > Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting. No, Ron - that would be you who demonstrates your foolishness by persisting. A choice is not inherently a dilemma. You are wrong to keep insisting that it is. > > Please illustrate in any meaningful way how the three examples are > different > > I can choose chocolate cake or rice pudding (You limit my choices) > I can choose to be with you or against you (bush limits my choices) > I can choose chili or spaghetti (rudy limits my choices) They are all the same: NOT dilemmas. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > > wrote: > > > > > "Ron" > wrote in message > > > ... > > > > In article > .com>, > > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Ron wrote: > > > >> > In article >, > > > >> > Derek > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >In article >, > > > >> > > > Derek > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote: > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Then forced complicity > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >There is no such thing. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten > > > >> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd > > > >> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in > > > >> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to > > > >> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A > > > >> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force > > > >> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough. > > > >> > > > > >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma. > > > >> > > > >> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all. > > > >> > > > >> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that > you feel > > > >> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A > dilemma is a > > > >> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be > exhaustive of > > > >> the truth. > > > > > > > > The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti > -- > > > > skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and > eating > > > > earlier. > > > > > > And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice. > > > > > > >> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of > "false > > > >> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you > have > > > >> not identified logical dilemmas at all. > > > > Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting. > > No, Ron - that would be you who demonstrates your foolishness by > persisting. A choice is not inherently a dilemma. You are wrong to > keep insisting that it is. Limiting choices always creates a dilemma. > > Please illustrate in any meaningful way how the three examples are > > different > > > > I can choose chocolate cake or rice pudding (You limit my choices) > > I can choose to be with you or against you (bush limits my choices) > > I can choose chili or spaghetti (rudy limits my choices) > They are all the same: NOT dilemmas. |
|
|||
|
|||
Ron AGAIN chose against adult engagement and wrote:
> In article .com>, > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > > Ron wrote: > > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > "Ron" > wrote in message > > > > ... > > > > > In article > > .com>, > > > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Ron wrote: > > > > >> > In article >, > > > > >> > Derek > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >In article >, > > > > >> > > > Derek > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> Then forced complicity > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> >There is no such thing. > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten > > > > >> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd > > > > >> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in > > > > >> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to > > > > >> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A > > > > >> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force > > > > >> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma. > > > > >> > > > > >> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all. > > > > >> > > > > >> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that > > you feel > > > > >> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A > > dilemma is a > > > > >> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be > > exhaustive of > > > > >> the truth. > > > > > > > > > > The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti > > -- > > > > > skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and > > eating > > > > > earlier. > > > > > > > > And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice. > > > > > > > > >> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of > > "false > > > > >> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you > > have > > > > >> not identified logical dilemmas at all. > > > > > > Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting. > > > > No, Ron - that would be you who demonstrates your foolishness by > > persisting. A choice is not inherently a dilemma. You are wrong to > > keep insisting that it is. > > Limiting choices always creates a dilemma. No, Ron. That is a misuse of the word dilemma. |
|
|||
|
|||
dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > > The example is a case of insignificant cause. No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant. You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin running your mouth about it. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > Ron AGAIN chose against adult engagement and wrote: > > In article .com>, > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > > > > Ron wrote: > > > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Ron" > wrote in message > > > > > ... > > > > > > In article > > > .com>, > > > > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Ron wrote: > > > > > >> > In article >, > > > > > >> > Derek > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >In article > >, > > > > > >> > > > Derek > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> >> Then forced complicity > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> >There is no such thing. > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten > > > > > >> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd > > > > > >> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a > choice. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in > > > > > >> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to > > > > > >> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A > > > > > >> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force > > > > > >> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice > that > > > you feel > > > > > >> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A > > > dilemma is a > > > > > >> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be > > > exhaustive of > > > > > >> the truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > The truth is that there are more options than chili or > spaghetti > > > -- > > > > > > skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and > > > eating > > > > > > earlier. > > > > > > > > > > And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or > choice. > > > > > > > > > > >> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of > > > "false > > > > > >> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because > you > > > have > > > > > >> not identified logical dilemmas at all. > > > > > > > > Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting. > > > > > > No, Ron - that would be you who demonstrates your foolishness by > > > persisting. A choice is not inherently a dilemma. You are wrong > to > > > keep insisting that it is. > > > > Limiting choices always creates a dilemma. > No, Ron. That is a misuse of the word dilemma. Please explain a dilemma. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > dogmatically wrong Ron wrote: > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > > wrote: > > > > The example is a case of insignificant cause. > > No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The > one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant. > > You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin > running your mouth about it. In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote, my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's. |
|
|||
|
|||
Ron AGAIN chose against adult engagement and wrote:
> In article .com>, > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > >>Ron AGAIN chose against adult engagement and wrote: >> >>>In article .com>, >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Ron AGAIN chose against adult engagement and wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting. >>>> >>>>No, Ron - that would be you who demonstrates your foolishness by >>>>persisting. A choice is not inherently a dilemma. You are wrong >>>>to keep insisting that it is. >>> >>>Limiting choices always creates a dilemma. >> >>No, Ron. That is a misuse of the word dilemma. > > > Please explain a dilemma. I already did in the thread, and you've responded after it. Dutch repeated it, and you responded to that as well. Look it up yourself. You're misusing the word. You plainly don't know what it is. |
|
|||
|
|||
Ron wrote:
> In article .com>, > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > >>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote: >> >>>In article >, "Dutch" >> > >> >>>wrote: >>> >>>The example is a case of insignificant cause. >> >>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The >>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant. >> >>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin >>running your mouth about it. > > > In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other > vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote, > my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's. Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between decisive and significant. Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're clever, when you so plainly aren't? |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > In article .com>, > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > > > > > >>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote: > >> > >>>In article >, "Dutch" > >> > > > >> > >>>wrote: > >>> > >>>The example is a case of insignificant cause. > >> > >>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The > >>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant. > >> > >>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin > >>running your mouth about it. > > > > > > In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other > > vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote, > > my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's. > > Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between > decisive and significant. It is not significant. That is your error. It is one of many, many votes. > Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're > clever, when you so plainly aren't? I think I have a tendency to be curious. Any other labeling that you attach to it is your issue. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article >, "Dutch" > >> > wrote: >> > >> >> "Derek" > wrote >> >> >> >> > Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links >> >> > vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop >> >> > production, >> >> >> >> If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production, >> >> and I >> >> agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in >> >> rice >> >> production. >> > >> > Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical >> > fallacy of insignificant cause. >> >> This is not an example of insignificant cause. >> >> The following example is quite parallel to the case of the rice consumer. >> >> "Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped defeat the Tory >> government >> because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any other >> vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." >> See the following link.. >> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php > > What a powerful feeling that must be. An eating disordered person is > likely to overestimate their impact in the world and to create > situations where this would be viewed this way. > > The example is a case of insignificant cause. Is the cause of the defeat > of the tory because the person voted reform, or because many voted > reform, liberal and chose not to vote at all. Placing one's self at the > centre of the universe is a frequent occurence for those who need to > feel special, important, powerful, in control, etc. Your ranting is becoming increasing incoherent. One does not have to be at the centre of the universe to be responsible. If you voted Tory and they got in, you were responsible, as responsible as everyone else who voted Tory. The alternative is NOBODY was responsible, and that makes no sense. You can have your own personal reality if you want, knock yourself out. Likewise, the man who eats a burger is responsible for the death of the steer. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
dreck nash's distortion and eating disorder | Vegan | |||
Gaverick Matheny gets "vegans" into DEEPER hot water | Vegan | |||
dreck nash is a crybaby liar | Vegan | |||
Dreck was in custody in a Scottish gaol in April 2002 | Vegan | |||
Unethical Dreck Nash and his omission of context | Vegan |